undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCogitoCogito2y ago0 comments

So if the law were changed to remove said liability, you would support a freedom to roam in the US?

0 comments

I would compromise if they offer me in trade ability to shoot trespassers/"roamers" who are criminal traffickers.

So you want to be judge, jury, and executioner. Doesn't sound like a compromise to me. In Norway, where I grew up anyone shooting at someone taking advantage of the ability to roam would be rightly subject to a massive manhunt.

beaeglebeachh2y ago

Your asking for me to relinquish some of my private property rights. Obviously I want something in trade, it's not gonna be unilateral charity so traffickers can be judge jury and executioner against my children who roam my property.

>Norway, where I grew up anyone shooting at someone

In Arizona you can shoot these people with ak47, thankfully and get charges dropped after a deadlocked jury. As recently happened.

I'm pretty happy with Norway doing their Norway thing and Arizona doing how we handle it here. Not interested in making the US Norway.

CogitoCogitoOP2y ago

I’m confused why you think this would put you at increased risk. You are allowed to defend yourself against threats today. Why do you think that would change?

Though you are also speaking as if people camping on your land away from your dwelling are necessarily threatening. If that is something you believe, you might want to reflect and ask yourself why.

1 more reply

vidarh2y ago

I'm asking you to stop denying the public freedoms in return for getting the same freedom yourself.

Nobody is asking you to allow others to do violence against you. But that you want to be free to deprive others of life and liberty on the basis of guesses strikes as a brutally authoritarian attitude.

1 more reply

CogitoCogitoOP2y ago

We’re talking people walking across or camping on your land and in both cases staying away from any residences where people actually live. How would you even know someone is trafficking?

beaeglebeachh2y ago

Hmm might want to reword it as reasonably believe, then let the jury figure it as they did with the rancher with an AK who recently walked.

vidarh2y ago

Only if they can shoot at you too if they reasonably believe you're a threat to their safety. Which it sounds like you'd be likely to be.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

beaeglebeachh2y ago

I would compromise if they offer me in trade ability to shoot trespassers/"roamers" who are criminal traffickers.

vidarh2y ago

beaeglebeachh2y ago

>Norway, where I grew up anyone shooting at someone

In Arizona you can shoot these people with ak47, thankfully and get charges dropped after a deadlocked jury. As recently happened.

I'm pretty happy with Norway doing their Norway thing and Arizona doing how we handle it here. Not interested in making the US Norway.

CogitoCogitoOP2y ago

I’m confused why you think this would put you at increased risk. You are allowed to defend yourself against threats today. Why do you think that would change?

Though you are also speaking as if people camping on your land away from your dwelling are necessarily threatening. If that is something you believe, you might want to reflect and ask yourself why.

1 more reply

vidarh2y ago

I'm asking you to stop denying the public freedoms in return for getting the same freedom yourself.

1 more reply

CogitoCogitoOP2y ago

We’re talking people walking across or camping on your land and in both cases staying away from any residences where people actually live. How would you even know someone is trafficking?

beaeglebeachh2y ago

Hmm might want to reword it as reasonably believe, then let the jury figure it as they did with the rancher with an AK who recently walked.

vidarh2y ago

Only if they can shoot at you too if they reasonably believe you're a threat to their safety. Which it sounds like you'd be likely to be.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse